> claim that language is ill-suited to convey emotion because it is patriarchal

Our language is ill-suited, I think. Or at least the way in which we use our language. It's not 'emotions' we have anymore, for example, it's our 'mental states'! Ask five people today how they are going and if you get more than standard answers I'd be very surprised. We are at, any one instant, the sum of direct and indirect environmental forces, of our mood, our memories recalled, our mental and physical rhythms - all these things - but ask someone how they are and you are sure to get a hurried, 'Oh, fine, fine!'.

Our type of usage promotes the notion of discrete predicates going about making the world what it is. You might hold the extraordinary proliferation of objects throughout history as being responsible for this. We, as the sorcerer's apprentice, have now opened up pandora's box and are frantically rummaging. Where you fit in the 'patriarchy' is another story. Regarding emotional words, I think you can opt for the "Germanic train-car constructions" but using combined portmanteau words doesn't necessarily get you much closer to putting your finger on it (not that that is possible, right?). The German 'Kofferwörter' are actually, IMO, far more useful for succinctly describing technical issues - go figure.
I think the best you can do with emotional language is collect a host of excellent metaphors and calibrations to outline the abstract, to reign in what you're getting at. Once you know what you're are not talking about you have a much better idea of what you mean.:-)